Things that are broken from CT book 3 worldgen

[EDG]

1st, because it's possible (maybe even likely) that populations up to the millions could (and will) live on totally non-habitable worlds. Why? Because once you get past a couple generations you develop a local identity, and that is part of habitation patterns. So long as the basic needs (Food, water, atmosphere, stimulation) are met, people will live there.

And I've already said that I strongly disagree with that opinion, because the studies you referenced aren't remotely the same situation.

People lived in various catacombs.

When was the last time millions of people lived in a single cavern system?

But plain and simple, Traveller is Space Opera... and as a genre, that includes the hive worlds, dome habs, and other types of high density high population enclave that are "unlikely" by some peoples view points.

Except it's not Space Opera. Not pure-blooded space opera anyway - it's got a strong bent of grittiness and realism in it. It's more Alien than Star Wars.

Vulcan in Sten, a size 1 world long since buried under the industrial complex that grew up over it. Population somewhere around a million.

I don't know anything about this, but I will say that Star Trek is not even remotely the similar to Traveller.

[*]Venus and Mars colonies from Jovian Chronicles - both present due to terraforming efforts, and both in the 10E7 range.[*]Mars colonies in Babylon 5[*]Mars in Total Recall

All of which are worlds within the same system as a habitable homeworld, so aren't really valid examples. And again, those aren't Traveller and don't hold Traveller's tropes.

They may not be realistic, but the system has to allow for them, as they are expected.

Expected by whom? The system doesn't HAVE to allow for them at all. How about Hadley's Hope on Acheron? What about Io from Outland? Or the prison colony from Alien 3? Those are arguably a lot closer to the feel of Traveller than anything you quoted.

As for B & C, no, I disagree. It is entirely possible that no other worlds exist, or that there is some reason the world is being inhabited.

Then build a space station - it's a lot better and cheaper than living on the surface. Especially when there's other worlds nearby (even an asteroid in the same system is easier to live on than that kind of environment). For one thing you don't need to keep repairing vacc suits and vehicles all the time just because they're outside for a few hours...

That's another thing that everyone forgets about, incidentally - the actual cost of living in such a hostile environment. If you had a choice of funding a colony (because someone has to pay for it, and for getting there, even though it's totally ignored in Traveller) then would you rather choose to build wooden huts or unsealed buildings on a habitable world, or high tech hermetically sealed habitats that need a ton of automation and computers to run properly? It's vastly cheaper to take the habitable option, and also those worlds are much more attractive to people so you can get more colonists wanting to get out there. Economically speaking (never mind anything else), it strikes me as being utterly insane to live in an environment as harsh as a B or C atm.

 

[captainjack23]

1st, because it's possible (maybe even likely) that populations up to the millions could (and will) live on totally non-habitable worlds. Why? Because once you get past a couple generations you develop a local identity, and that is part of habitation patterns. So long as the basic needs (Food, water, atmosphere, stimulation) are met, people will live there.

And I've already said that I strongly disagree with that opinion, because the studies you referenced aren't remotely the same situation.

There are no studies as as the situation as defined does not and never has existed. Ergo, calls for references are useless.

People lived in various catacombs.

When was the last time millions of people lived in a single cavern system?

Never. Never been an opportunity to, either. Heck there's not even been millions of people in cities for essentially all of human history.

Argument not relevant, I fear, on either side.

No studies = no studies , period. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

If one does not wish to extrapolate, a reasonable if limiting approach, then there really is nothing much more to say that doesn't boil down to "sez you". Which is the point, really.

The rest is, I fear, opinion vs opinion, on both sides, so, as I'm trying to stay out of those arguments, I'll restrict my comments to the above.



This is why felt this would be a can o' worms. And now it's open, and no fishook in sight.

 

[AKAramis]

But plain and simple, Traveller is Space Opera... and as a genre, that includes the hive worlds, dome habs, and other types of high density high population enclave that are "unlikely" by some peoples view points.

Except it's not Space Opera. Not pure-blooded space opera anyway - it's got a strong bent of grittiness and realism in it. It's more Alien than Star Wars.

Vulcan in Sten, a size 1 world long since buried under the industrial complex that grew up over it. Population somewhere around a million.

I don't know anything about this, but I will say that Star Trek is not even remotely the similar to Traveller.

it isn't a trek reference at all. Standard citation:
Cole, Allan and Chris Bunch, 1982. Sten. Del Rey.

http://www.acole.com/novels/sten/sten_samples/sten_one.html

[*]Venus and Mars colonies from Jovian Chronicles - both present due to terraforming efforts, and both in the 10E7 range.[*]Mars colonies in Babylon 5[*]Mars in Total Recall

All of which are worlds within the same system as a habitable homeworld, so aren't really valid examples. And again, those aren't Traveller and don't hold Traveller's tropes.

They may not be realistic, but the system has to allow for them, as they are expected.

Expected by whom? The system doesn't HAVE to allow for them at all. How about Hadley's Hope on Acheron? What about Io from Outland? Or the prison colony from Alien 3? Those are arguably a lot closer to the feel of Traveller than anything you quoted.

As for B & C, no, I disagree. It is entirely possible that no other worlds exist, or that there is some reason the world is being inhabited.

Then build a space station - it's a lot better and cheaper than living on the surface. Especially when there's other worlds nearby (even an asteroid in the same system is easier to live on than that kind of environment). For one thing you don't need to keep repairing vacc suits and vehicles all the time just because they're outside for a few hours...

That's another thing that everyone forgets about, incidentally - the actual cost of living in such a hostile environment. If you had a choice of funding a colony (because someone has to pay for it, and for getting there, even though it's totally ignored in Traveller) then would you rather choose to build wooden huts or unsealed buildings on a habitable world, or high tech hermetically sealed habitats that need a ton of automation and computers to run properly? It's vastly cheaper to take the habitable option, and also those worlds are much more attractive to people so you can get more colonists wanting to get out there. Economically speaking (never mind anything else), it strikes me as being utterly insane to live in an environment as harsh as a B or C atm.[/quote]

If what you need is on the surface, then you build a hab ON THE SURFACE. If what you need is a steady supply of what's on the surface, you build a hab on the surface, and make people live there.

 

[EDG]

The rest is, I fear, opinion vs opinion, on both sides, so, as I'm trying to stay out of those arguments, I'll restrict my comments to the above.

You're probably right. Aramis thinks Traveller is a lot more space opera than I think it is, so we think the population distribution should be totally different.

Though how universal is this worldgen intended to be? Won't different SF universes have different kinds of assumptions about this sort of thing?

 

[EDG]

it isn't a trek reference at all. Standard citation:
Cole, Allan and Chris Bunch, 1982. Sten. Del Rey.

http://www.acole.com/novels/sten/sten_samples/sten_one.html

Oh, sorry, I saw "Vulcan" and filled in the rest

If what you need is on the surface, then you build a hab ON THE SURFACE.

Not when it's a damn sight easier to build it a short low orbital hop away.
Your logic is like saying that if you want something from a lava lake in a volcano, you have to send people down there to get it and even to live right in the middle of it. Whereas the saner solution would be to put the people in the closest place that they can live in with the least effort - which could be around the rim of the volcano if it's not really active, or the slopes or the base of the volcano - and then send robots into the lava lake to get it.

If what you need is a steady supply of what's on the surface, you build a hab on the surface, and make people live there.

Yeah, good luck with that. At best you'd cycle a small amount of people there in shifts, not force families to live in hellholes. And there's undoubtedly easier ways to get those things too. Hell, just build some darned robots to get it for you.

 

[captainjack23]

[duplicate post deleted......]

 

[captainjack23]

The rest is, I fear, opinion vs opinion, on both sides, so, as I'm trying to stay out of those arguments, I'll restrict my comments to the above.

You're probably right. Aramis thinks Traveller is a lot more space opera than I think it is, so we think the population distribution should be totally different.

Though how universal is this worldgen intended to be? Won't different SF universes have different kinds of assumptions about this sort of thing?

different assumptions ? Possibly or probably. In fact, and this is not flame bait (I hope) very few SF universes put gigantic effort into having a completely worked out system for their universe . Many have the chinese food approach - after a good exciting read, one half hour after you are done you say"....HEY....if that is all desert.....where does the 02 come from?" (or somesuch) The point is, I doubt if you could get a consistent description of a world/population from many writers, particularly as like in comics, most consistency is retrospective. So....while various SF universes should be modelable , it's good to keep in mind that they aren't exactly ironclad simulations...so there is a lot of slop in modeling them.
Lensman series What is the population of Tellus ? big.
Boskone ? Bigger certainly, evil undoubtedly.
Tralfamidor ? Wrong universe.
Certainly first written as a one off book, no series planned then pasted together from two series.
Foundation Series: Trantor. Are you kidding ? First have it make any sense, and then we'll worry about the population. Short stories pasted together when the insiration struck.
Known space: Jinx ? No. Come back when you have a world that works.
Down ? Ummmm. well, no idea, but they're tall, possibly due to the...gravity ? And its...windy.
Plateau: ummmm. Not with that gravity. Come back when you have a world that works.
Many short stories and novels pasted together when fans started asking.
Sten: Vulcan. Ummm Population...lots but less than lots and lots. Underground -why ? It sucks topside...and they're slaves...who have no way off...and its economical to do this.....Economic system...based on one man ? Oh yeah. Come back when you have an economic model that works.
Probably first written as a one off book, no series planned.
Harrington...gravimowhozits ? You modeled tech and ship combat from the age of sail ...huh ? probably first written as a one off book, no series planned.

And on and on. I should note that these are all amongst my favorite SF series, ever. Even with the quirks.

I guess the answer is, it's as universal as any system...it is until it isn't . At which point it can be modded or tossed. Much like a fiction series - except, I don't have the option of writing my own Patrick O'brien book when 1814 goes on for about 6 years.
So, as an answer, .... I think its more universal than many - and probably more than it needs to be given the material in question; and as quirky as most systems when pushed to its limits. Although to be fair, most sf systems make a point of intentionally limiting their scope to less than traveller.

So.....to conclude, I really doubt that contradicting each others arguments about various uses for the system is in any way useful, given the lack of a foundation (no pun) on which to base a decision.

Okay. Out.

 

[SableWyvern]

I agree with AKaramis about population densities, and with captainjack in that it's nonsensical to be demanding or attempting to provide "proof" that either approach is superior.

Any statement that boils down to something like, "In the far future, it is most likely that a huge interstellar polity will use the following criteria when selecting which planets to settle..." is pure, baseless speculation.

 

[GamerDude]

Why couldn't technology allow a global govt even on a low pop world.? (will be re-reading the charts later after my migraine goes away for better comments)

Because "Us Guys hate Those Guys". Technology won't magically dissolve ideological differences that split apart populations. Groups will disagree, leave or get exiled to form their own societies etc, and that will always be the case.

My comment was only, why is it IMPOSSIBLE when global communications (and rapid transport) technology exists? Of course the us v them mentality is an issue...

Hell look at our current TL and how fractured we are..

BUT, having global communications/travel technology would make it EASIER for a solid global gov't to happen.

Also, remember current OTU is in the third imperium, which is what like 3,000 years from now? Ya think the Imperium (one, two or three )might have helped make some forming of global govt on an imperial system.

 

[SableWyvern]

Where does this idea that there aren't global governments on low pop worlds come from?

The No Gov and Balkanised results are the only ones that don't provide global governments.

 

[captainjack23]

Why couldn't technology allow a global govt even on a low pop world.? (will be re-reading the charts later after my migraine goes away for better comments)

Because "Us Guys hate Those Guys". Technology won't magically dissolve ideological differences that split apart populations. Groups will disagree, leave or get exiled to form their own societies etc, and that will always be the case.

My comment was only, why is it IMPOSSIBLE when global communications (and rapid transport) technology exists? Of course the us v them mentality is an issue...

Hell look at our current TL and how fractured we are..

BUT, having global communications/travel technology would make it EASIER for a solid global gov't to happen.

Also, remember current OTU is in the third imperium, which is what like 3,000 years from now? Ya think the Imperium (one, two or three )might have helped make some forming of global govt on an imperial system.

Well, unless the strategy is "keep the natives fighting amongst themselves...and offer to guard the ports and mines...and keep selling them obsolete weapons to keep things fair and even...."

Although, depending on how you class anarchy, far and away MOST of the imperial systems have but one government...only balkanized government type has multiple governments on one planet (type 7), actually only occurring( lets see...hmm subtract the two..factor out by 4 ...)occurs 4 times out of 36 = or .11%. on an average population world. And even then, it doesn't HAVE to be a mutually hostile situation. Europe is currently balkanized and pretty co-operative compared to most of history. (well, Balkanized Europe excluding the Balkans).

So, it looks to me like the assumption in the GT table is exactly what you are arguing for. Unification over division.

 

[captainjack23]

I agree with AKaramis about population densities, and with captainjack in that it's nonsensical to be demanding or attempting to provide "proof" that either approach is superior.

Any statement that boils down to something like, "In the far future, it is most likely that a huge interstellar polity will use the following criteria when selecting which planets to settle..." is pure, baseless speculation.

How bout' "In the far future, all we can go on is the fact that currently there is no place on earth so crappy and horrible that people don't raise families....except Antarctica, and if the Inuit historically had better boats, or current international law was different, they'd be there too."

I mean...Tierra del fuego ? Greenland ? Guadalcanal ? The Kalahari ? Tibet ? Rapanui ? Christmas island for god's sake ?

Wow. Some people really, really lost a lot of wars....or had way too many kids.

 

[AKAramis]

Which is why a system of rolling extra dice and counting 2 of them makes for a more universal system is more universal.

If one has to link population (and it isn't a bad idea, but not a Travelleresque one), it should allow for a fuller range than flat negative DM's can/will provide.

So, here's a way of handling it that optimizes for habitability, but doesn't preclude the high pop:

If a T-Prime world (Size 7-9, Hyd 4-8, Thin-Dense untainted) Roll 1 extra die, droping the lowest die
If tainted, roll an extra, dropping the highest
If below size 6, roll an extra die, dropping the highest
If Hyd 3- roll an extra die, dropping the highest
If Atm 0-3, Roll an extra, dropping the highest
If Atm A Roll an extra, dropping the highest
If Atm B, roll 2 extras, dropping the highest 2
If Atm C, roll 3 extras, dropping the higest 3.


But remember: the main world is also going to set the limit for all other worlds in system.

A "build the system and pick" is always going to produce different criteria than a "What's the main world" then "expand from the main world" approach.

And lets face it: for many of us, Traveller has never been terribly realistic. My campaigns often owe more to Errol Flynn movies, the Real (Original) Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rodgers (serials and 1980's TV show) and Flash Gordon than to Transhuman Space.

One of the best "Travelleresque" sci-fi series (whether or not Mr. Whedon was inspired by Traveller or not) is Firefly. Realism? Not much. Fun? yes. Six-Guns and Starships, local TL's vary widely, and tiny worlds with breathable atmospheres...

Sten reads like a TL16-17 TU. Aside to Cap'nJack: considering the number of unresolved plothooks, probably not intended as a one-off... Spotted Snakes, eh, Laddie?)
And Vulcan's not underground, but in habs above, so many, the the original world is long since mined to negligibility.

McCaffrey's FSP setting has almost exclusively habitable worlds mentioned. Same with Doc Smith's Fuzzy setting.

Niven's Known Space focuses on habitable worlds as well; the exceptions (like the Smoke Ring) are really odd...

The variety needs to be doable.

 

[EDG]

I agree with AKaramis about population densities

Funny thing - CT book 3 talks about population densities when discussing the UWP pop digit in the referees notes on page 9:

Population Density: For comparison, the following population
densities are common on twentieth century Earth. Earth on the whole has
a population of about three billion (population level 9); this is approximately 5 persons per square mile, or 16 persons per square
mile of land area. Europe is populated at about 151 persons per
square mile, the equivalent of population level 10. The Netherlands
contain 1500 persons per square mile, or about population level 11. Hong
Kong has 10,000 persons per square mile, the equivalent of population
level 12.

But it doesn't actually say how population and population density relate though, like how it figures that a density of 1500 is somehow equivalent to 'population level 11'... it looks like <99 people/sq mile is somehow 'population UWP 9', 100-999 is UWP 10, 1000-9999 is UWP 11, and 10000-99999 is UWP 12. But there's no reason to believe that, since population density is going to be down to the size of the planet as well.

 

[GamerDude]

Harrington...gravimowhozits ? You modeled tech and ship combat from the age of sail ...huh ? probably first written as a one off book, no series planned.

Actually, STL as modeled in the Honorverse is quite realistic. Ok we don't have fusion plants and such but they use physics. Ships don't turn on a dime like SW, ST, and any other number of series both on screen and print which used "nertia-less propulsion".

Instead ships must accelerate, they must slow down, they have to apply thrust to turn and vectors are figured on how the applied thrust changes the current velocity vector. In this case it is like a car. if you're doing 60mph and want to turn right 90 degrees from your current direction, it ain't happening on the spot. Your turning radius will, in part, be a direct result of how fast you are going (as well as the vehicle being able to stay on the road).

Now, their FTL system was moving along bands of gravity waves. I am not even going to go there because I have not the background to get into that conversation.

 

[SableWyvern]

Funny thing - CT book 3 talks about population densities when discussing the UWP pop digit in the referees notes on page 9:

I meant galactic population spread, and the relationship between world conditions and population, not pop per square kilometer.

 

[SableWyvern]

How bout' "In the far future, all we can go on is the fact that currently there is no place on earth so crappy and horrible that people don't raise families....except Antarctica, and if the Inuit historically had better boats, or current international law was different, they'd be there too."

Actually, I think that while that forms a reasonable starting point, it's also easily dismissed as to its relevance depending on what further assumptions you wish to make (and, it is necessary to make further assumptions, even if they're limited to, "And, once we reach the stars, humans will have the capability and desire to continue to settle and raise families anywhere they can."

 

[GamerDude]

So, it looks to me like the assumption in the GT table is exactly what you are arguing for. Unification over division.

No it's not.

All I'm saying is start with a totally different human culture, (or ours after another say, 1500 to 2,000 years), who's to say they might not be better at working out differences... How does huge interstellar imperium come into being while allowing the factions on any individual world to just keep going at each other? (Yes, the Imperium doesn't get involved in intraplanetary wars unless they are thought to have an effect on the Imperium itself.

anyway, the point is just because with our meger TL 6/7 world (based on the LBB3 tech table) cant figure out how to do better at building a working world gov't doesn't mean other worlds (or even us in another 1,000+ years) couldn't do that.


On LBB3 and the Govt/LL, I don't like it... it assumes that only large population planets can have world gov't, and such. I look at getting a max roll/minimum roll and then applying the minimum/maximum modifier on it. Large pop worlds are more likely to be basically oppressive gov'ts and lower pop worlds (even with pops in the millions) are more likely to have something closer to feudal or a multi-nationalistic society. while it might be hard for our world to have such a situation, a TL 8/9 could conceivably establish a world gov't that is some form of democracy/republic (USA is actually a republic not a true democracy). Instantaneous communications and rapid travel makes that quite easy.

Unfortunately this begs the question, do we go with a bunch of tables for the interrelation of possibilities, some better guidance on what is most likely in order to allow GM's the ability to do some manual validation of random rolls (or some other method)

 

[captainjack23]

Harrington...gravimowhozits ? You modeled tech and ship combat from the age of sail ...huh ? probably first written as a one off book, no series planned.

Actually, STL as modeled in the Honorverse is quite realistic. Ok we don't have fusion plants and such but they use physics. Ships don't turn on a dime like SW, ST, and any other number of series both on screen and print which used "nertia-less propulsion".

Sez you... :wink:

Actually.....'nertia-less propulsion does use physics....just not the inertia based inertial movement parts of physics.

HH also uses Gravitic fields and drives, which ain't much more reasonable than 'nertia-less drives. But so what ?

My main beef w/. HH is the lengths they go to, and the hoops they jump thru to make it a super high tech 19th century society with broadside combat ships with long guns and carronade analogues. It's a good read, but if I have to read the justification for broadside weaponry and invulnerable keels one more time.....

Not to say that I don't read them.....

 

[EDG]

How bout' "In the far future, all we can go on is the fact that currently there is no place on earth so crappy and horrible that people don't raise families....except Antarctica, and if the Inuit historically had better boats, or current international law was different, they'd be there too."

The Inuit would need bloody good boats to get to Antarctica from northern Canada...